About your Search

20121208
20121208
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)
and why it could be a good idea. your money starts right now. >>> congratulations, washington. you achieved nothing this week. this is "your money." president obama's offer to avoid the fiscal cliff was laughed at by republicans last week. this week the gop counter offered. theirs, extend tax cuts to the everyone including the rich. $2.2 million in areas from closing loopholes and deductions, savings on health care and cuts in discretionary spending. other than that, no specifics. president obama said the gop must agree to one thing to get anywhere close to a deal. >> we have to see the rates on the top 2% go up. we're not going to get a deal without it. >> speaker boehner fired back. >> this week we made a good faith offer to avert the fiscal crisis. now we need a response from the white house. we can't negotiate with ourselves. >> here we are just weeks away from going over the fiscal cliff. you probably wonder what's going on in these houses in washington. they put themselves and their political gains first and put their future in prosperity second. hey, you voted them in. remem
the rest of the world. so 90% of the what happens in growth has nothing to do with washington. it's coming from the private sector itself and we're overcoming a lot of difficulties. on the government side, i think the president's plan is let's grow from the middle out. let invest in the workforce. let's invest in rebuilding the infrastructure of the country. let's try time prove the competitiveness of u.s. industry and we have got to shift to more export and investment-led growth and away from residential investment and consumer spending. i think that's the overview of what he was saying in the campaign. and i think you are right, laura, that the only thick that we were arguing about was high income people's tax rates and should they go back to what they were in the 90's. that would be totally inadequate as a complete plan. i think in 2013, i wish we could do it before, but i think it's going to be 2013, i think we're going to sit down and they probably will hammer out something like a grand bargain. that would be a pretty big accomplishment. that will involve substantial -- will have to i
to see trillion deficits for as far as the eye can see. listen, washington's got a spending problem, not a revenue problem. >> joining me now are richard wolffe, the executive editor of msnbc.com and an msnbc political analyst, and robert reich, former labor secretary and a professor at the university of california berkeley. he is also the author of "beyond outrage." richard, i want to go to you first here. the president talked quite a bit in the election cycle. >> quite a bit. >> he did, period, about the fever breaking amongst republicans in congress . >> yes. >> it's been quite feverish of late, which is to say a lot of back and forth, a lot of hot air blown from the house caucus. i wonder if you think that fever might be breaking with the suggestion john boehner said, even if the president gets his way on tax rates, which would seem to open the door to that possibility. >> it's a bit to latch on to that. they cannot settle on a position. very different from the last time around. and it's true. the white house has said both publicly and privately, look, we're prepared to see all
not exactly a bass chan of conservative open borders, "the washington post," and i particularly direct this comment to steve and suggest he tuth have some conversation with the post. on the seventh of july, it put out a major article and this was the headline. u.s. pushes for more scientists but the jobs aren't there. i'll give you a quote in a moment. i did take the opportunity since my agency has a few scientists to interview about this and i said what is your opinion. not all, but the consensus overall, why are we here, we're here because the jobs aren't in the private realm. a second source was organized labor that i recently went to in view of this forum and the public relations person said we agree with the "washington post." i'll leave you with one quote and i invite steve to approach the post. there have been many predictions of science labor shortages said the editor of the online magazine science careers and yet it seems awfulfully hard for people to find a job. anyone who goes into science expecting employers to clam more for their services will be deeply disappointed. >> we
is that if there is some movement until the positive direction, which have not seen out of washington and enter a long time, -- in a long time, at least we will not see head winds. we are making some progress. i see that continue. >> i want to come back to what todd said earlier. i am concerned about confidence being fragile. todd reference what happened until august of 2011. we saw in limited to lie confidence tank. market confidence grew jog with some of the market confidence plunged. i think we have to be concerned -- market confidence plunged. if we look like we are not grappling with these key challenges. what happens on january 1, everybody is saying it is a fiscal clove -- a fiscal slope, not a fiscal cliff. it is not like a zombie accomplice happens. if market confidence was up the window, that could be damaging. >> i think is likely there is going to be a deal, some other deadline for another deal next year. it is really important and they not said a whole series of opportunities to have that kind of collapse again. they have a couple months, but they have to make sure whenever they come up with f
in washington. >> i think that's the key point. you look at the history of environmental movements in this country. the american people including in red states have proved themselves willing over and over again to tax themselves to address current risks to their health, their children's health, their communities, their water supply, the air they breathe. the problem with climate to date is it's seen as a future risk, and it's coming forward. >> the politics also change -- you made this interesting point about the geography changing. we basically know how the senators from west virginia are going to vote on stuff that has to do with coal. democrat, republican, marxist, whatever. whoever you would elect from west virginia they're going to vote a certain way on coal. and the fact that we now have this incredibly distributed development because of the fracking boom means a lot of different places now are geographically playing. that goes two ways. one way is we produce more senators from the state of west virginia and how they vote. the other is we produce this broad grassroots activac
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)